Thread by @bulatlat

[Thread] Supreme Court oral argument on the Anti-Terror Law begins. Lawyers for both petitioners and respondents enter their respective appearances.

Lawyer Jose Anselmo Cadiz: The anti-terror law may bring more harm that the evils it should suppose fight.

Lawyer Chel Diokno: Terror law's chilling effect is palpable, calls on the Supreme Court to strike down the law before it brings more danger.

Lawyer Evalyn Ursua cites the freezing of bank account of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines based on mere claims that those behind the religious organization are funding an underground movement. The terror law, which allows terror designation, will institutionalize this.

Lawyer Ursua: Red-tagging proves to be deadly as in the case of slain lawyer Benjamin Ramos and activist Zara Alvarez. She also cites recent red-tagging of UP alumni who were falsely accused of terrorism, their lives put at risk.

Lawyer Ursua assails absolute power of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate individuals as terrorist, describes its power as having "no limitation."

Who is the real target of the anti-terror law? Lawyer Neri Colmenares says the law targets activists and perceived dissenters who criticize or oppose certain government policies.

Colmenares: No one should go to prison for the exercise of constitutional rights. This terror law has done precisely that. That is why this abomination that pretends to be a law to protect the people must be struck down.

Lawyer-petitioner & lawmaker Edcel Lagman says the prolonged detention that the terror law has allowed is an "unmitigated assault" on human rights, adds that it also deprives the people of due process as mere suspicion now replaces judicial process of determining probable cause.

Responding to a question from Associate Justice Carandang, lawyer Cadiz says Gen. Parlade has posted threats against petitioners via his Facebook Page. "We cannot sit idly by for Gen. Parlade to actualize these threats."

Cadiz also clarifies that the terror law allows executive department to encroach on judiciary's power to issue warrants, adds that the Writs of Amparo & Habeas Data might be rendered ineffective, with a detained person not being able to immediately avail of the judicial relief.

Diokno says based on the collatilla provided by the Anti-Terrorist Act of 2020, law enforcers will be left to determine if one's intent constitutes that of a terrorist act.

Lawyer Ursua says the RMP received notice that their bank accounts have been frozen after the prescribed period that appeal is allowed. Read @bulatlat earlier report on this: bulatlat.com/2020/02/07/ban…

Lawyer Ursua says the process of delisting is not a relief that the anti-terrorism law provides. Even if it is indicated in the IRR, Ursua says the ATC can choose to ignore that because it is not found in the law.

Associate justice Carandang: Since terrorism is a new phenomenon, can't lawmakers pass a law that is longer than what RPC indicates?

Lawyer & petitioner Lagman: Congress cannot pass a law against terrorism by derogating civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Associate justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe now interpellating.

Responding to Senior Associate Justice Bernabe's interpellation, Diokno says terror law is beyond help given its vagueness.

Lawyer Ursua agrees that there are searches that are reasonable but says AMLA's bank inquiries in the context of the terror law is incomparable, describing it as unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen now interpellating.

Justice Leonen says he understands the fears brought by the passing of the law. He adds that for the law to be void, it must be clear and convincing that there is no other interpretation but an infringement on a certain right.

Justice Leonen said the definition of terrorism has excluded the advocacy. Adding that when intent is to kill somebody, gov't must be able to step in.

Justice Leonen: We have to see how the government reacts. Should we not wait? Perhaps the facts should be very clear.

Session is adjourn. Will resume on Feb. 9, 2 p.m.

SC oral arguments on the Philippine terror law ends. Next oral argument is set on Tuesday, Feb. 9.

Read the full story here: bulatlat.com/2021/02/02/dec…